6 ms·

Hi! Jeremy from The Post here. We’re still evaluating what it would mean for us to run an instance. But we’re definitely adding rel=me to our author profile pag

Hi! Jeremy from The Post here. We’re still evaluating what it would mean for us to run an instance. But we’re definitely adding rel=me to our author profile pages ASAP.

d23 4y ago
Really exciting to see. I remember when y'all started posting on reddit when they launched the profile page feature. Seems like you're always willing to try out new things. I'm hoping Mastodon catches on and replaces Twitter.
riffic 4y ago
in theory you don't even need to run Mastodon. I don't know how adaptable your own CMS is but a forward thinking org would skate where the puck is going to be in terms of supporting the ActivityPub protocol. you may want to be getting in touch with folks like Evan Prodromou or Christine Lemmer-Webber for their guidance.
- doublepg23 4y ago
  +1 on this. Having more services talking on the protocol level would be fantastic.
ksniwmidjd 4y ago
[flagged]
- wellthatsawrap2 4y ago
- wellthatsawrsp5 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - ksniwmidjd 4y ago
- tedunangst 4y ago
  It's their server, so whatever they want it to be.
  - ksniwmidjd 4y ago
    Of course it is. That’s why they are able to censor it
meltyness 4y ago
What is your strategy? Some obvious wishes would be - organic fact-based journalism, free from narrative manipulation - transparent security to protect individual sources, is the instance accessible? can extremely precise/leaky details, like timestamps be clamped? or even perhaps tools to thwart stylometry - facilitating and amplifying quality discourse - novel UX - does "read aloud" work on the page - permalink integrity, can the backend meaningfully serve the postings for a decade or so? - facilitating reporting, citizen/snapmap model this, except maybe in terms of osint data Also,... serif?
- ksniwmidjd 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - wellthatsawrap6 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - d23 4y ago
      Two accounts created in the last 3 hours just to troll this thread?
      - wellthatsawrap6 4y ago
        [flagged]
        meltyness 4y ago
        Comments have fairly stringent expectations compared to other sites, consider conforming more carefully to the guidelines[0], and you can post whatever you like. Not to be accusatory, but undersubstantiated hot-takes are frowned upon, because they don't result in productive conversation. Think debate / examine, rather than protest, basically. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
jpoesen 4y ago
Great news! But please run it on your main domain, as something like social.washingtonpost.com rather than washingtonpost.social. Running the instance under your own well-known domain equals instant verification and trust, whereas anyone can set up a .social.
- zenexer 4y ago
  On the other hand, you end up leaking cookies between the two subdomains when you take this approach. If one site gets hacked, so does the other. It’s better to use two separate domains and begin establishing trust for the new domain.
  - infotogivenm 4y ago
    Only if you don’t pin your cookies to the subdomain and/or are not using HTTPOnly. Even if you screw that up, cookie tossing in general is a rather low risk item; I don’t think its accurate at all to say “if one site gets hacked so does the other.”
Rebelgecko 4y ago
Does the AGPL-ness of Mastodon potentially pose any problems?

Hi! Jeremy from The Post here. We’re still evaluating what it would mean for us to run an instance. But we’re definitely adding rel=me to our author profile pages ASAP.

d23 4y ago

Really exciting to see. I remember when y'all started posting on reddit when they launched the profile page feature. Seems like you're always willing to try out new things. I'm hoping Mastodon catches on and replaces Twitter.

riffic 4y ago

in theory you don't even need to run Mastodon. I don't know how adaptable your own CMS is but a forward thinking org would skate where the puck is going to be in terms of supporting the ActivityPub protocol. you may want to be getting in touch with folks like Evan Prodromou or Christine Lemmer-Webber for their guidance.

doublepg23 4y ago
+1 on this. Having more services talking on the protocol level would be fantastic.

ksniwmidjd 4y ago

[flagged]

wellthatsawrap2 4y ago
wellthatsawrsp5 4y ago
[flagged]
- ksniwmidjd 4y ago
tedunangst 4y ago
It's their server, so whatever they want it to be.
- ksniwmidjd 4y ago
  Of course it is. That’s why they are able to censor it

meltyness 4y ago

What is your strategy? Some obvious wishes would be - organic fact-based journalism, free from narrative manipulation - transparent security to protect individual sources, is the instance accessible? can extremely precise/leaky details, like timestamps be clamped? or even perhaps tools to thwart stylometry - facilitating and amplifying quality discourse - novel UX - does "read aloud" work on the page - permalink integrity, can the backend meaningfully serve the postings for a decade or so? - facilitating reporting, citizen/snapmap model this, except maybe in terms of osint data Also,... serif?

ksniwmidjd 4y ago
[flagged]
- wellthatsawrap6 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - d23 4y ago
    Two accounts created in the last 3 hours just to troll this thread?
    - wellthatsawrap6 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - meltyness 4y ago
        Comments have fairly stringent expectations compared to other sites, consider conforming more carefully to the guidelines[0], and you can post whatever you like. Not to be accusatory, but undersubstantiated hot-takes are frowned upon, because they don't result in productive conversation. Think debate / examine, rather than protest, basically. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jpoesen 4y ago

Great news! But please run it on your main domain, as something like social.washingtonpost.com rather than washingtonpost.social. Running the instance under your own well-known domain equals instant verification and trust, whereas anyone can set up a .social.

zenexer 4y ago
On the other hand, you end up leaking cookies between the two subdomains when you take this approach. If one site gets hacked, so does the other. It’s better to use two separate domains and begin establishing trust for the new domain.
- infotogivenm 4y ago
  Only if you don’t pin your cookies to the subdomain and/or are not using HTTPOnly. Even if you screw that up, cookie tossing in general is a rather low risk item; I don’t think its accurate at all to say “if one site gets hacked so does the other.”

Rebelgecko 4y ago

Does the AGPL-ness of Mastodon potentially pose any problems?